A V REDDY KADIAM Vs. SHANTI T PRIYADARSHINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dt. 31-10-91 passed by the Court of the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari in I A No. 674/91 in O P No. 521/91. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in OP No. 521/91 instituted by the respondent herein invoking the provisions contained under section 74 of Indian Trust Act seeking the relief of directions to the appellant to make over all the fruits of the Trust to her including the shares, monies FDRs which the trust is holding in the 3rd respondent a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The parties are not strangers, but are closely related inasmuch as the appellant is no other than the paternal grandfather of the respondent herein. The respondent's father, Mr Prem Kumar Reddy, the respondent No. 4 in the main 0 P is the only son of the appellant, born through his first wife, who is no more. It seems that the misunderstandings in the family crept in as respondent's father suspects that the appellant was favouring Sent. Saraswati (Appellant's second wife) and had been secreting away monies to her.

(2.) The O P is filed by the respondent herein who is the Ccstui Que Trust waking allegations of breach of trust against the appellant, the author of Trust, in managing the 1st respondent Trust in O P. The acts of the said breach of trust, as stated by the respondent in O P, are enumerated hereunder :

(3.) These acts mentioned above, according to the respondent herein, were not in the beneficial interests of the Trust and that, on the other hand it was detrimental to the Trust and as the appellant has acted to the detriment of the trust in collusion with the 2nd wife and that as she is a major and Sui Juris coatinuance of the appellant as a trustee is not necessary and that he should be relieved of his duties and instead, either the assets of the trust should be made over to ber or in the alternative her father in whom she reposes confidence should be appointed as the trustee on removing the appellant. She also claims that her father and the appellant were the members of the coparcenery and the appellant was the Kartha of the joint family and that the said joint family held the shares in India Fruits Limited and in view of certain exigencies, the shares were distributed among the members of the joint family. The investment in the trust is traced to the funds of the said joint family. The O P itself was instituted by the general power of attorney of the respotdcnt who is one of her brothers and he is the signatory of not only the petition, but also the affidavit sworn in support of injunction petition.